• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Evidence Based Library and Information Practice >Digital Libraries that Demonstrate High Levels of Mutual Complementarity in Collection-level Metadata Give a Richer Representation of their Content and Improve Subject Access for Users
【24h】

Digital Libraries that Demonstrate High Levels of Mutual Complementarity in Collection-level Metadata Give a Richer Representation of their Content and Improve Subject Access for Users

机译：展示馆藏级元数据中高度互补的数字图书馆，可以更好地展现其内容，并改善用户的主题访问权限

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A Review of: Zavalina, O. L. (2013). Complementarity in subject metadata in large-scale digital libraries: A comparative analysis. Cataloging & Classification Quarterly, 52(1), 77-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2013.848316 Objective – To determine how well digital library content is represented through free-text and subject headings. Specifically to examine whether a combination of free-text description data and controlled vocabulary is more comprehensive than free-text description data alone in describing digital collections. Design – Qualitative content analysis and complementarity comparison. Setting – Three large scale cultural heritage digital libraries: one in Europe and two in the United States of America. Methods – The researcher retrieved XML files of complete metadata records for two of the digital libraries, while the third library openly exposed its full metadata. The systematic samples obtained for all three libraries enabled qualitative content analysis to uncover how metadata values relate to each other at the collection level. The researcher retrieved 99 collection-level metadata records in total for analysis. The breakdown was 39, 33, and 27 records per digital library. When comparing metadata in the free-text Description metadata element with data in four controlled vocabulary elements, Subject, Geographic Coverage, Temporal Coverage and Object Type, the researcher observed three types of complementarity: one-way, two-way and multiple-complementarity. The author refers to complementarity as “describing a collection’s subject matter with mutually complementary data values in controlled vocabulary and free-text subject metadata elements” (Zavalina, 2013, p. 77). For example, within a Temporal Coverage metadata element the term “19th century” would complement a Description metadata element “1850–1899” in the same record. Main Results – The researcher found a high level of one-way complementarity in the metadata of all three digital libraries. This was mostly demonstrated by free-text data in the Description element complemented by data in the controlled vocabulary elements of Subject, Geographic Coverage, Temporal Coverage, and Object Type. Only one library demonstrated a significant proportion (19%) of redundancy between free-text and controlled vocabulary metadata. An example of redundancy found included a repetition of geographic information in both a Description and Geographic Coverage metadata elements. Conclusion – The author reports high levels of mutual complementarity in the three cultural heritage digital libraries studied. The findings demonstrate that collection-level metadata which includes both free-text and controlled vocabulary is more representative of the intellectual content of the collections and improves subject access for users. The author maintains that there is no standard for collection-level metadata descriptions, and that this research may contribute to best practice guidelines in this area. It is unclear whether the digital libraries studied had written policies in place on how to describe collections and if those policies were adhered to in practice. The author expresses a need for further research to be conducted on collection-level metadata in other domains, such as science and interdisciplinary digital libraries, and on other scales (e.g., regional or state collections) and geographic regions beyond Europe and the United States.
机译：评论：Zavalina，O. L.（2013）。大型数字图书馆中主题元数据的互补性：比较分析。编目与分类季刊，52（1），77-89。 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639374.2013.848316目标–确定通过自由文本和主题标题如何很好地表示数字图书馆内容。专门检查自由文本描述数据和受控词汇的组合是否比单独描述文本集合时的自由文本描述数据更全面。设计–定性内容分析和互补性比较。设置–三个大型文化遗产数字图书馆：一个在欧洲，两个在美国。方法–研究人员检索了两个数字图书馆的完整元数据记录的XML文件，而第三个图书馆公开了其完整的元数据。为所有三个库获取的系统样本启用了定性内容分析，以揭示元数据值在集合级别如何相互关联。研究人员总共检索了99个收集级元数据记录以进行分析。每个数字图书馆的分解记录为39、33和27条记录。当将自由文本描述元数据元素中的元数据与四个受控词汇元素（主题，地理覆盖范围，时间覆盖范围和对象类型）中的数据进行比较时，研究人员观察到三种互补类型：单向，双向和多重互补。作者将互补性称为“在受控词汇表和自由文本主题元数据元素中用相互补充的数据值描述集合的主题”（Zavalina，2013年，第77页）。例如，在时间覆盖元数据元素中，术语“ 19世纪”将补充同一记录中的描述元数据元素“ 1850-1899”。主要结果–研究人员在所有三个数字图书馆的元数据中发现了高度的单向互补性。这主要由Description元素中的自由文本数据，Subject，Geographic Coverage，Temporal Coverage和Object Type的受控词汇元素中的数据补充。只有一个库显示出自由文本和受控词汇元数据之间有很大比例的冗余（19％）。找到的冗余示例包括在描述和地理覆盖元数据元素中重复地理信息。结论–作者报告了所研究的三个文化遗产数字图书馆的高度互补性。研究结果表明，包括自由文本和受控词汇在内的馆藏级元数据更能代表馆藏的知识内容，并改善用户对主题的访问。作者坚持认为，对于收集级元数据描述没有标准，并且该研究可能有助于该领域的最佳实践指南。尚不清楚所研究的数字图书馆是否就如何描述馆藏制定了书面政策，以及这些政策是否在实践中得到遵守。作者表示需要对其他领域（例如科学和跨学科数字图书馆）以及欧洲和美国以外的其他规模（例如地区或州馆藏）和地理区域的馆藏级元数据进行进一步研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号